According to Spark (2011:36), “the public relations industry, much like other parts of the economy, is going through massive changes, brought about by rapid and continuous evolution in communications technologies. PR professionals are under pressure to keep pace with the changing ways that people are communicating and with adapting their business models to the quick pace of change in a world where information flows faster than ever before”.

This quote sets the scene in terms of PR and the new world order of communications implied in the core message of the posted article. However, the issue of successfully implementing this new world order presents itself in the financial sector. It is understood by many in this industry that social media and mobile channels are the way forward; however, these channels pose certain risks due to a very rigid business model that employees are confined to work within.

The financial industry is strictly regulated and there are certain legal frameworks and rules that need to be followed when communicating to and with the company’s stakeholders. Threats include tight legislation and policies set in place by financial boards and government; reputational risk; clients that are not yet familiar with technologies such as SMS and email, let alone social networks; and a lack of management and executive board buy-in. For me, I believe this has resulted in financial institutions entering into the social media playing field for superficial reasons. To explain, social media is used as yet another one-way communication tool instead of using it to generate feedback from clients (two-way feedback loop). As mentioned by Heather in another social media-related post from 01 March 2011, “you need to respond and not just transmit”. Social media in the industry is used to send messages without acknowledging the fact that clients want to close the loop via engagement and dialogue. From a personal perspective, many financial institutions are engaging in social media merely “to be seen” because pure engagement opens up a multitude of risks that these institutions are not willing to take.

Taking the above risks into consideration, it is also important to note which companies are doing it right. The financial world has much to gain by following exceptional examples. I recently read an article in the FinWeek centred on the Chief Executive Officer of FNB, Michael Jordaan, opening a Twitter account. He says he uses Twitter to make notes for himself on things that he finds interesting (Jordaan, 2010). This fact makes him fascinating to follow because each of his tweets has a personal sentiment and as well as a strategic purpose.

“Before you condemn Jordaan’s dalliance with social media as frivolous, consider the fact that the CEO’s adoption of a medium such as Twitter may just be symptomatic of something far bigger – both internally for FNB and a sea of change in the way we all interact with companies, particularly those eager to position themselves as technologically innovative and responsive to their customers” (Whitfield, 2011:15).

FNB began embracing Twitter in 2009 in an attempt to engage with clients and “… as part of a strategy to extend their ethos of helpfulness. FNB’s involvement in Twitter is also serving a market research function. It provides almost instant feedback on what customers are thinking” (Wertheim-Aymes, 2009). They have followed the social media path with great success and the fact that the CEO believes enough in the value-add of this technology sets an incredible example that other financial institutions should seek to follow.

In conclusion it might be important to remember that, in the long run, the risks of not engaging may be higher than those of actually engaging. A study conducted by Alterian (2010), illustrates that 77% of those surveyed felt that their brand is at risk by not being as engaged with clients as it should be.